• After 43 years sold property , any legal heris have rights

Property originaly  belongs to "a" after his dead  his 1st son name was muted in revenue records, since from 1961  to 1972  . in 1972 my father  purchased from 1st son & his two sons jointly mentioning that " for purchase of another land , for family nessestis & etc". after my fathers death my name is muted  in revenue records from 1995 , in 2005 land was "phodi"  and seprat hiss was obtained in my name i constructed compound wall,. in 2013 land was converted to commercial & resdiantal purpose, 1n 2014  i build some residental houses in the land and given for rent.
1) dececsed a 's 2nd sons son  & a's daughters son  asking sepreate share in the property, since they are not parties in the sale deed
2) after 43 years sale &  i am in  possession , 
All these legal heirs have any legal rights in the property ? if so in which act they can claim their rights ?
Asked 2 years ago in Property Law from Bangalore, Karnataka
Religion: Hindu
1) if it was A self acquired property on his demise property would devolve on his legal heirs . 

2) you have not mentioned how property was mutated in A first son name . was consent obtained of his other son and daughter? 

3) grand children would not have any share in self acquired property of A . 

4) if it was ancestral property whatt were they doing for 43 years? 

5) delay in approaching courts has to be explained . 

6)claim appears to be barred by imitation 

7) consult a local lawyer 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
44162 Answers
2561 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

1. Unless the children of A can prove that the property was ancestral at the time of sale they cannot challenge the sale. If it was A's self acquired property then he was at liberty to sell it to anyone he desired.

2. If the property can be proved to be ancestral then the lapse of 43 years from sale does not preclude them from filing a suit to recover their share in the property subject to it being filed within 12 years from the date of knowledge of sale.
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
22958 Answers
631 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

The 2nd son's son and a's daughter's son are just creating false claim. Absolutely no worries. 
As per your statement, the revenue records are bearing your father's name from 1972 and your name from 1995. 
you are in possession of the property. 
As per law, any transaction done 30 years before are deemed to be valid. in your case, your father is the owner as per sale deed, revenue records and has been the owner since 1972 and thereafter you are the owner of the property. 
Moreover in your case, legally, the 2nd son of A and A's Daughter   should have contested the title between 1961 to 1965(3year limitation) or if they were minor till 1972, they should filed a case within 3 years of they becoming major. 
in your case, it is A's 2nd son's son and A's daughter's son who are now filing a suit. the suit will fail on account of the following points :

a) Law of limitation. 
b) What the father(2nd son)/Mother(a's daughter) failed to do, their children cannot do (filing of suit against first son and your father way back in 1972 or 3 years after they(2nd son and A's daughter) became major. 
c) You are the owner  by virtue of a sale deed and all records are mutated in your name. You are in possession of the property for 43 years. even assuming you have no title, since you are in possession of the property for 43 years, as per law, you are in adverse possession. 
Hence you can be rest assured of your title and ownership.
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
1261 Answers
154 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Property that is sold 43 years ago, grand children of A asking for separate share in the property is totally illegal and wholly uncalled for. They have absolutely no right whatsoever. You are not inclined to give them anything at all.
You being in possession is good, this possession is uninterrupted from the time of transfer into your name.
The legal heirs are claiming under the Hindu Law of Succession, claiming it to be the ancestral property.
Kiran N. Murthy
Advocate, Bangalore
987 Answers
86 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Hi, A's 1st Son and his two sons being the Kartha of the property has sold the property for legal necessity and family benefit so you need not give share to them.

2. If they want they can claim the property through court then you can contest the case on merits.
Pradeep Bharathipura
Advocate, Bangalore
4527 Answers
202 Consultations

4.3 on 5.0

1) dececsed a 's 2nd sons son  & a's daughters son  asking sepreate share in the property, since they are not parties in the sale deed
2) after 43 years sale &  i am in  possession , 
All these legal heirs have any legal rights in the property ? if so in which act they can claim their rights ?

In my opinion these so called heirs would not have been even born at the time of sale of property in the year 1972, even otherwise they do not have any rights in the properties because this property belonged to a's son and his siblings who all jointly sold the property to your father. Let them file a case in the court of law, they cannot win nor their case is maintainable.  In the outskirts of Bangalore a land mafia is operating who are behind such antisocial activities especially wherever they find some development program is going on to grasp money illegally in the name of litigation etc. Do not budge to any pressure. 
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
34322 Answers
367 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer